my point was that if you expect a manager to retire an elite warrior that he or she has invested YEARS and thousands of dollars in getting them to the top, you have got to come off of a sweet deal. you can't expect them to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. i sure as hell wouldn't... not without fair compensation.

I think this is a pretty equitable viewpoint. I probably wouldn't salivate at the notion of being forcibly retired if I was dominating the class.

There have been other suggestions which will never be done, such as aging warriors, or allowing skill learns above 25 with diminishing returns, which would allow newer warriors to compete with older ones.

Of course, not competing at that level, I defer judgement to those who do.

Last edited by AndruilTheAncient on Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

KellumboGrandmaster Poster

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 849
Location: Saginaw, Michigan

Posted:
Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:29 am

PurpleSage wrote:

Kellumbo wrote:

So, after people invest years of time, and thousands of dollars into warriors, to finally get them up towards the top, you want the warriors to go away?

For me, being able to compete in the Primus tourney, with Primus quality warriors is the ultimate goal.

I really think forced retirement is a bad, bad idea.

While it is nice that you are looking at ways to improve the top of the game (although, do you even have warriors at the top to know if it needs improving?), my thinking is that a better option might be to help the other styles be more competetive (if they aren't already, and we just don't know it). If all styles had a shot to TC primus, instead of the basically agreed upon few, then I think you would see more participation in the Primus tourney.

-DK

I have two warriors that I am not fighting in Primus at this time. However you have begun like many with personal attacks to belittle anyone who puts out an idea contrary to your thinking. I would respectfully request you keep your peraonal attacks and flames in the off topic area. The diffrence between selfish and selfless is easy to describe. Selfish "I am on top. I spent the money. MIne Mine Mine." SelfLess "I had my time in the sun with the best spot on the beach here you have a turn and I won't kick sand on you."

I agree with RSI on the tweek of styles. you do not tweek all styles up you tweek the bad spot on the wheel down. From what I have been told they are working on this with the AB. Now Kellumbo please do not take anything I have said personally but I will repeat if attacked personally I will ignore you. I have no reason to have anything against you except for your belittlement.

Sincerely Purple Sage

I'm not sure what you thought was a personal attack. If you are talking about my question of if you have any Primus warriors, it was simply that, a question, not an attack.

Anyways, if you took it other than as intended, ...sorry.

-DK

PurpleSageGrandmaster Poster

Joined: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 758
Location: Lapur

Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:49 pm

Kellumbo wrote:

PurpleSage wrote:

Kellumbo wrote:

.... If all styles had a shot to TC primus, instead of the basically agreed upon few, then I think you would see more participation in the Primus tourney.

-DK

.... I would respectfully request you keep your peraonal attacks and flames in the off topic area. The diffrence between selfish and selfless is easy to describe. Selfish "I am on top. I spent the money. MIne Mine Mine." SelfLess "I had my time in the sun with the best spot on the beach here you have a turn and I won't kick sand on you.".......
Sincerely Purple Sage

I'm not sure what you thought was a personal attack. If you are talking about my question of if you have any Primus warriors, it was simply that, a question, not an attack.

Anyways, if you took it other than as intended, ...sorry.

-DK

I will accept your statement however I was not alone in interpreting that as a standard lead in to a personal attack. I have read many posts and heard the anti-game balance squad try to belittle and berate with what is now definatly an advantage of numbers. The Arena manager of meager means have pretty much all left do to the lack of equity as you can see. I am not a person who will stand by and not respond to squelch those types of personal denigrators.

I would prefer to only discuss what can help the game and refreshing old and listing to new ideas that might balance the game and draw more players.

I believe we would agree that the game needs.

#1. More new players

Sincerely Purple Sage

ManagerrArchMaster Poster

Joined: Jul 12, 2002
Posts: 4078
Location: Omaha

Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:04 pm

Quote:

Why is it every time someone voices there opinion about something that everyone knows is a problem with the game, all you hear is "You aren't allow to have an opinion in that discussion, because you don't even play there."

Perhaps if RSI had listened to ALL of the players over the last 10-15 years the game wouldn't have those problems right now.

Imho, RSI did listen to those players regarding many of the big Primus tweaks over the years (quicker trains, merging Primus and Gateway, the most recent tweak to AB's off the top of my head). Those players said those changes would result in more people playing at the top end, people getting more interested, etc. Instead the only thing it's done is hasten the log jam--and the people who continually make suggestions are the ones who never end up playing.

Any Primus TV is supposed to be able to retire by choice and have their name flown on a banner at FtFs and stuff, but to my knowledge no one has ever tried to take RSI up on it.

We definitely also need new players, but I think fixing Strikers in basic would be a bigger priority than fixing Primus in this case...a Primus logjam isn't going to scare a newbie from playing.

ManagerrArchMaster Poster

Joined: Jul 12, 2002
Posts: 4078
Location: Omaha

Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:15 pm

Quote:

The Goal: Duelmaster of all the realm. Some turn over at the top end that attaracts longer carreers for warriors.

The Reason: Making the game about the Duelmaster (The Lady's Protector) as it used to be.

The Method: Retirement. Any warrior who makes it to The Lady's Protectorat (place a number here) times is rewarded with Retirement. Tie in One and out of tourney's for a Primus TC.

Primus Managers are also pretty vindictive with each other. People will start throwing Lady Protector's fights to warriors they want to see retired. (Which will result in a lot of people not bothering to fight in the arena...)

SwineTigerArchMaster Poster

Joined: Mar 16, 2006
Posts: 1033
Location: Northern California

Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:38 pm

If the problem is that the logjam of power warriors at the top is limiting other players from ever getting there (note the word "if"), the simplist solution that doesn't require RSI to tweak the game is to create a new arena for the most elite warriors. This would make the top of Primus more attainable, while making the new arena (Primus Maximus?) aspirational.

In terms of tweaks that punish the top end vets, for every manager who is not spending money in AD, there is a manager who is. Therefore, if you disenchant those who are active there and they drop out, then you're ultimately not going to generate more revenue for RSI by filling their seats.

I think the biggest tweak that everyone could (or should) agree with is balancing out some of the styles more, but given the fact that this game is built upon technology from the '80's, it's hard to know what's even possible. I'm just happy they upload the newsletters.

Since these threads appear everytime a player returns, it would be great if someone who attends the next facer can actually ask Lee about what is doable, what has been done and what - if anything - is in the works. In the absence of answers, all we end up with is a lot of heated theoretical debates.

ST

ManagerrArchMaster Poster

Joined: Jul 12, 2002
Posts: 4078
Location: Omaha

Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:00 pm

Quote:

If the problem is that the logjam of power warriors at the top is limiting other players from ever getting there (note the word "if"), the simplist solution that doesn't require RSI to tweak the game is to create a new arena for the most elite warriors. This would make the top of Primus more attainable, while making the new arena (Primus Maximus?) aspirational.

But is it? Does it really matter if the aspirational arena is Primus or Primus Elite? You're going to have a high point in the game where only a handful of warriors are competitive anyway....why not just let it be Primus?

Quote:

I think the biggest tweak that everyone could (or should) agree with is balancing out some of the styles more, but given the fact that this game is built upon technology from the '80's, it's hard to know what's even possible. I'm just happy they upload the newsletters.

Yeah, I agree, but of course we'd have knock down drag out battles about what it means to balance out the styles more. For example some people just want some styles to be competitive at some point in the game, while others want every style to be competitive at all points in the game.

Quote:

Since these threads appear everytime a player returns, it would be great if someone who attends the next facer can actually ask Lee about what is doable, what has been done and what - if anything - is in the works. In the absence of answers, all we end up with is a lot of heated theoretical debates.

Big stuff not doable right now is what I'm always told. Small tweaks happen regularly though. That said, what seems big and small is probably different from RSI than it is to us. When I asked about weapon balancing or trying to improve the effectiveness of certain weapons, I was told it was much tougher than it looked on the surface. (There's not just a singular place where you can go to change certain values on a weapon)

IchabodArchMaster Poster

Joined: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 1251
Location: Michigan

Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:12 pm

The game was written long before modular coding became the norm, so I have a hunch that the code is one huge mess of spaghetti.

If the problem is that the logjam of power warriors at the top is limiting other players from ever getting there (note the word "if"), the simplist solution that doesn't require RSI to tweak the game is to create a new arena for the most elite warriors. This would make the top of Primus more attainable, while making the new arena (Primus Maximus?) aspirational.

But is it? Does it really matter if the aspirational arena is Primus or Primus Elite? You're going to have a high point in the game where only a handful of warriors are competitive anyway....why not just let it be Primus?

I did say "if" based on what I read, but it seems like the glass ceiling argument has come up before, so this is a cosmetic solution that will at least provide another attainable tier to reach.

Visionst01ArchMaster Poster

Joined: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 1567
Location: South Carolina

Posted:
Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:40 pm

I find it amazing that not one person commented about my idea of warriors losing there immortality once they reach a certain FE. When warriors reach that point there managers are given two options.

1. Retire the warrior and recieve a new DYO warrior on any team they wish.
2. Continue to play and risk dying in the arena.

Now this would only be available to the warrior when they reach that FE breakpoint or if warriors are already beyond that breakpoint when it was implamented. But once you make the choice to retire or not retire you can't change your mind later.

You aren't forcing anyone to retire, you are only forcing them to make a choice.

I find it amazing that not one person commented about my idea of warriors losing there immortality once they reach a certain FE. When warriors reach that point there managers are given two options.

1. Retire the warrior and recieve a new DYO warrior on any team they wish.
2. Continue to play and risk dying in the arena.

Now this would only be available to the warrior when they reach that FE breakpoint or if warriors are already beyond that breakpoint when it was implamented. But once you make the choice to retire or not retire you can't change your mind later.

You aren't forcing anyone to retire, you are only forcing them to make a choice.

I don't like the idea.

As a manager who doesn't yet have warriors at the top of Primus, I don't want to do well in Primus in the future because Bonnie and Webbed Toes and Furious Impaler and whoever else aren't allowed to fight any more (either by retirement or being stripped of their immortality). I'd prefer to compete against the greats of the game and see how my warrior stacks up, win or lose.

ManagerrArchMaster Poster

Joined: Jul 12, 2002
Posts: 4078
Location: Omaha

Posted:
Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:06 am

Quote:

I find it amazing that not one person commented about my idea of warriors losing there immortality once they reach a certain FE. When warriors reach that point there managers are given two options.

Will even create a worse problem than now because the top tier warriors will kill their up and coming challengers, resulting in a tier of even more unbeatable warriors. The warriors that win a lot aren't the ones who are going to die.

IchabodArchMaster Poster

Joined: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 1251
Location: Michigan

Posted:
Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:29 am

SwineTiger wrote:

Managerr wrote:

Quote:

If the problem is that the logjam of power warriors at the top is limiting other players from ever getting there (note the word "if"), the simplist solution that doesn't require RSI to tweak the game is to create a new arena for the most elite warriors. This would make the top of Primus more attainable, while making the new arena (Primus Maximus?) aspirational.

But is it? Does it really matter if the aspirational arena is Primus or Primus Elite? You're going to have a high point in the game where only a handful of warriors are competitive anyway....why not just let it be Primus?

I did say "if" based on what I read, but it seems like the glass ceiling argument has come up before, so this is a cosmetic solution that will at least provide another attainable tier to reach.

The problem here, ST, is they already did that once. It was called Gateway, and it didn't end up solving anything.

.........Perhaps if RSI had listened to ALL of the players over the last 10-15 years the game wouldn't have those problems right now.

Imho, RSI did listen to those players regarding many of the big Primus tweaks over the years (quicker trains, merging Primus and Gateway, the most recent tweak to AB's off the top of my head). Those players said those changes would result in more people playing at the top end, people getting more interested, etc. Instead the only thing it's done is hasten the log jam--and the people who continually make suggestions are the ones who never end up playing.........We definitely also need new players, but I think fixing Strikers in basic would be a bigger priority than fixing Primus in this case...a Primus logjam isn't going to scare a newbie from playing.

Strickers in basic I know not of this problem and would love to see it discussed in a seperate Thread if you would not mind to inform me?

As far as listing to players I disagree slightly. Yes RSI has listened to players not all players however yes they have listened. And some of those playewrs had alterior motives besides the improvement of the Total game and attracting players and competition. Take for example this Horid Idea of a TC in the Dead tourney instead of being moved to ADM and given some skills the "selfish opinion won out" My warriors deserves to be a sandbagging immortal who can drift and fight where he likes with no concern for strategy since he's immortal. I finde this to be the perfect exaple of RSI listing to players whoi where secretly fighting for an advantage for their godling sandbager who died. Faster learns in Primus is another example of a decision not for the screwed warrior(Warrior without great bonuses) but for the bonused warrrior to climb up the ranks quicker to get to the top. I would have voiced my disagreement with both ideas however they are done and at least the faster learns can not be reversed now. The immortal TC one could easily be fixed. RSI simply states this idea has been used to create abuse we are corecting it. Its there game and Players will respond to a proactive, customer supportive company however they may not feel the need to do it at this time. Its their decision. I really think its Home Guard we as players should look at for creating warrior balance.

Question does Home Guard normally get the most hosed warriors?

Sincerely Purple Sage

IchabodArchMaster Poster

Joined: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 1251
Location: Michigan

Posted:
Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:50 pm

Yeah, the worst warriors (not necessarily the most hosed, as that has a diferent definition than I think you mean) tend to congregate in Home Guard.

A big reason for letting dead TC's stay in basic is because of style balance. Strikers tend to dominate initiates and adepts (hell, for all I know, apprentices, too - haven't fought that one much), but the style is pretty wretched in ADM. So let's say you get a dead striker to TC initiates. Under current rules, he's immortal so he cannot die, he can't be sent to the DA at 20 FE (Managerr, I'm looking at you!), and most importantly, he has the opportunity to compete in Adepts and maybe higher. If he were sent straight to ADM, he'd get crushed with practically no chance of winning for the next 6-12 months, and a moderate chance of winning after that. (That last part really could be said of nearly any initiate or lower sent straight to ADM.)